Victor Sullivan wrote:Haven't he and I done this by simply posting here and developing the map? I mean, it's not like I've ever said, "I agree to the copyright agreement", it's kind of a given since, well, I'm posting here and developing the map.

No.

Okay then... It's strange because I've never seen anyone specifically agree to the copyright agreement...

Victor Sullivan wrote:Haven't he and I done this by simply posting here and developing the map? I mean, it's not like I've ever said, "I agree to the copyright agreement", it's kind of a given since, well, I'm posting here and developing the map.

RedBaron0 wrote:Is it really that difficult? It's a legal thing Sully, has to be done, plain and simple.

Yes and no. It's just another obstacle... I've been around here long enough to know I've been through more than I should have, but I'm willing to endure. It's just been one big, long test of my patience.

RedBaron0 wrote:Is it really that difficult? It's a legal thing Sully, has to be done, plain and simple.

Yes and no. It's just another obstacle... I've been around here long enough to know I've been through more than I should have, but I'm willing to endure. It's just been one big, long test of my patience.

-Sully

*cough*martyr*cough*

...no seriously, every mapmaker's perspective gets skewed when it's his own work in question. Things will go much smoother on your 2nd map, when you have more experience and know the process. Don't think of the foundry process as "obstacles" or "hoops", it's in place to help you push yourself to create the best possible map you are capable of creating.

And Redbaron is right, the copyright agreement is a legal thing that is necessary to do so CC can use your map. Lackattack would be an idiot if he didn't require some kind of license/agreement from the mapmaker, otherwise a mapmaker who gets pissed at the site could just quit the site and say "ok, take down all my maps"... we don't want that.

Besides, it really is not a big deal. When you get to final forge, MrBenn will send you the copyright agreement by pm, to which you'll just respond that you agree. It's not like some huge thing you have to do. It's one PM so quit being such a crybaby!

Your compassion and empathy warm my heart like after eating a chocolate chip cookie and you get heartburn.

I understand the critiques to improve the gameplay and graphics, and it's not entirely the Foundry or CAs' fault, it's a combination of the involvement of SpikeWarden in my map (communicating with him, nagging him for updates, plus the skepticism and other junk surrounding him CC-wise), the long wait in the Gameplay Workshop, only to find that the Evil DIMwit and Co. thought that the gameplay needed a re-haul, the long wait in the Bin, Spike having posted a month before the thread was moved, and the thread moving back to the Gameplay Workshop because thenobodies and MrBenn didn't read the legend nor consult MarshalNey before moving it there... It's just a lot of crap to deal with. I don't mean to go off on anyone, but you have to understand my frustrations throughout this process.

And I completely understand the whole copyright/legal thing, it's just another thing to do... It'd be a heck of a lot easier if Spike knew how these forums worked a little more... I don't regret working with him by any means, he's a good friend of mine and he has enjoyed making this map, it's just the whole middleman thing that puts more stress on me.

Anywho, enough about this... Do you CAs have any graphical concerns? If not, when do you suppose this will be stamped?

Sully, I think I've already apologized for what happened, if this is not enough for you, then I don't know what I can do!And just for the record, when I moved back the map into the process, I immediately sent a PM to Marshalney asking him to give me more details about the map and its gameplay. When I received a reply I immediately moved this back to the graphic workshop, so if double check something (to prevent a possible failure) is for you something wrong, then you didn't understand what's my job here and, more in general, what's the CAs job. All the things we do are just to assure the all the mapmakers produce the best possible maps that they can produce and that those maps always reach the CC standard in terms of gameplay and graphics. Don't take our actions in the wrong way. You should only be patient, because patience is part of the Foundry process.

Said that, the only graphical concern I have is on the small version, if it was my map I would enlarge a bit the small version, to increase the size of the text in the legend (if there's no way to fit all the text with the space you have now).I also noticed that some colors don't give so good result through vischeck, but it shouldn't affect the playability of the map then I don't bother you about this.

Nobodies

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

thenobodies80 wrote:Sully, I think I've already apologized for what happened, if this is not enough for you, then I don't know what I can do!

You have it all wrong; Mistakes happen, I get that, I was just simply telling you where I'm coming from, that's all. I forgive you but at least now you understand a bit of my anguish...

thenobodies80 wrote:And just for the record, when I moved back the map into the process, I immediately sent a PM to Marshalney asking him to give me more details about the map and its gameplay. When I received a reply I immediately moved this back to the graphic workshop, so if double check something (to prevent a possible failure) is for you something wrong, then you didn't understand what's my job here and, more in general, what's the CAs job. All the things we do are just to assure the all the mapmakers produce the best possible maps that they can produce and that those maps always reach the CC standard in terms of gameplay and graphics. Don't take our actions in the wrong way.

I get that, I do, but you should have consulted him before moving it, since he was the one that approved the gameplay (along with Evil DIMwit). By making that call you doubted your own volunteer staff's judgement...

Ah, sorry, I know it's not my place to criticize. You and MrBenn are quite busy, I'm sure.

thenobodies80 wrote:You should only be patient, because patience is part of the Foundry process.

Yes... I realize...

thenobodies80 wrote:Said that, the only graphical concern I have is on the small version, if it was my map I would enlarge a bit the small version, to increase the size of the text in the legend (if there's no way to fit all the text with the space you have now).I also noticed that some colors don't give so good result through vischeck, but it shouldn't affect the playability of the map then I don't bother you about this.

You mean, add a few pixels to the small version to fit a larger font size?

And nobodies, regardless of what I say, I think you're doing a fine job here. I apologize if I've offended you in any way.

i really like the crisp graphics on this one.just 3 minor things:1. the impassable yellow lines have different hues and this might confuse some people. for example the line between G5 and Home is a lot darker than the one from G5 to W32. the light source is not common for all layers. some have it from the lower right some from the lower left others from the top and so on.3. some territories have lighter names and others have darker names. but since this is all symmetrical i'm suspecting there's a reason behind all this and i'm just not seeing it

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

Yup, yup. I'm working on trying to get Spike more incorporated in the map thread, which is why I have not responded to the graphical suggestions since the last update. I'll see if we can't speed things up.

Per the mapmaker's request, this map will be moved to the recycling bin for VACATION. If the mapmaker(s) wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

thenobodies80 wrote:Said that, the only graphical concern I have is on the small version, if it was my map I would enlarge a bit the small version, to increase the size of the text in the legend (if there's no way to fit all the text with the space you have now).

Done and applied for SuperSize.

DiM wrote:1. the impassable yellow lines have different hues and this might confuse some people. for example the line between G5 and Home is a lot darker than the one from G5 to W3

Fixed on the small version, but Spike didn't think it was necessary for the large - he said the slight shading is due to shadows (as you'll notice, the fixed small version is a bit more flat-looking, since he deleted the shadows. I doubt there would be confusion with the yellows - yellow is yellow. If it becomes an issue, I'm sure he'll attend to it.

DiM wrote:2. the light source is not common for all layers. some have it from the lower right some from the lower left others from the top and so on.

He wasn't even sure what you were talking about, and even if that's the case, he said it would be a long and tedious process to edit something so minor.

DiM wrote:3. some territories have lighter names and others have darker names. but since this is all symmetrical i'm suspecting there's a reason behind all this and i'm just not seeing it

Yeah, it's just a graphical element.

isaiah40 wrote:How's the next update coming along? Have spike post the update please, and then you can update the OP. Agreed?

Spike has to send in an e-ticket because he forgot his password, and the email assigned to his account is inactive (can't receive emails), thus why I'm presenting the update. I'll make sure he pops in soon, though